tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 9, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EST
ith the -- the idea is, that could be good for us not only economically, but it can also help with our foreign relations as well. >> so you don't have >> i prefer to talk to a wide array of people and make my own decisions. >> [indiscernible] what factors are you still waiting at this point? -- what factors are you still waiting at this point -- weighin at this pointg? >> in terms of my timeline, it will be the next few months. as we were saying earlier i think everybody is thinking about this. who is the next president is not as important as what the next president does. we face serious challenges. this next election will be a serious election. this is a consequential election about the future direction of our country.
i am not just thinking about the election but the issues and giving serious thought to where our country needs to go on energy, education, foreign policy, health care and a number of other areas. strongly encourage anyone else to do that. i don't know how you get into a race this important without giving serious thought to the issues. that is part of what i'm doing at this time. when i did make a decision, it will not be a secret. i'm happy to tell everybody. i will say this. for me, it will not be about fundraising or polling. it will be about restoring the american dream. i have been blessed. my parents came over 40 years ago in search of an opportunity. i feel like my brother and i have been able to live the american dream. i want my children and grandchildren to be able to live that dream as well. we have an open primary. i am term limited.
we will have an election later this all -- fall where everybody runs against everybody. if there is not a winner in the primary, the top two would go to a runoff. we have always had a runoff with one exception, in 2007 when i won in the primary. i think it is likely we will have a runoff. a number of candidates who have announced or are considering running, on the republican side, we have a number of candidates. it is thoroughly but i think there's a chance for the first time in our state history would could end up with two republicans in a runoff for the governor's race. there a real chance that could happen. there are a number of credible candidates. it is too early. you have a number of candidates that have raised significant funds and are beginning to make their moves. i would encourage these candidates to make known the positions on a number of issues. we made a commitment when i was
running we would not raise taxes. we put a lot of emphasis on education. i want to hear where these candidates stand to make sure they do not reverse the hard-fought gains. i think the voters will have a number of choices. we could have two republicans. the reason that is so interesting is the reason we have the open primary system, it is backed in the 1970's. edward edwards ran against bennett johnson in a fierce race for governor. got into a runoff, beat him in the early 1970's. it was a close race. then it went on to become a center -- senator. edwin thought this was unfair he had to run two tough elections and face this republican who had no opposition. at the time, republicans were 82% of registered voters in the state. everyone thought it was unfair the republican did not have to compete as well, so he decided to do an open primary figuring it would have two democrats -- you would have two democrats and
a republican. he thought it would save time. in the short-term, it allowed the republican party to growth to about 1/4 of the voters in louisiana. when my parents came to louisiana, it was common for registrars to tell people not to register as republican. you were told with close elections, you would not get to vote because the elections are done by the time you get to vote. it gave more people an opportunity to register as republicans and allow the party to grow. the open party system for the first time i produced you don't republicans in a runoff -- might reduce -- produce two republicans in a runoff. even if a democrat makes it in the mouth, i don't think there is a good chance the democrat would win. i don't think that is what the state wants. in a short time, when i read the first time, there was only one
statewide elected republican. now all of them are republican. today we have for the first time ever in majority in the house and senate. common sense reconstruction -- i mean since reconstruction. we have not had the majority in modern times. it could be to republicans in the runoff. >> i think that will eat it -- i think that will be it. we appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> governor jindal may be considering a run for the republican presidential nomination. the vermont senator says he is thinking about running himself but he is an independent. he spoke today at the brookings institution. here is what he had to say about possible presidential aspirations. >> i will ask this question to
get it out of the way. are you running for president? if you are, will the result closer to the 1971 special election or the 2012 reelection? >> with a little bit of luck 1971. let me say this. no great secret. i'm considering running for resident at a time when the middle class is disappearing, when we have grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality, when climate change threatens the entire planet, when you have a handful of billionaires in the process of buying the united states government and our political system. we have candidates -- it is important we have candidates prepared to take on big money interests. i am giving serious thought. don't tell my wife.
she does not necessarily a great -- agree. on the other hand, i also understand political reality. when you take on the billionaire class, it ain't easy. if i do something i want to do it well. it is important not just for my ego that i do it well. it is important for millions of people who share the same beliefs i hold. to do it well, he would have to put together -- we would have to put together the strongest grassroots movement in the modern history of this country. millions of people are saying enough is enough. we are all going -- we are going to take on the billionaire class. we are going to have a government that works for working families. i am going around the country and talking to a lot of people. there is a lot of sentiment that enough is enough, that we need fundamental changes, that the
establishment is failing the american people. but the gut feeling decision i'm going to have to reach is whether there is that willingness to stand up and fight back. if i run, i want to run to win. to run to win, you need millions of people actively involved. money is another story. this is how absurd the situation is. if you have a candidate who reached out and generated excitement and you had 2 million people say we will put $100 into the campaign, and by the way, in my senate race, my average contribution was $45. if you had 2 million people, phenomenal response, putting in $100, that is $200 million. that is 20% of what they are prepared to spend. can you take that on? i don't know the answer.
maybe they have bought the united states government. maybe there is no turning back. maybe we have gone over the edge. i hope not, but we have to look at that reality. >> when candidates run for president, they often have two objectives. the first is to win the election. there have been plenty of candidates who have run to advance an agenda even when they did not win. obviously, you have had two of thought about both sides of this equation. if i run and win, i run and win. if i run and lose, how can i have an effect on the agenda of the winning candidate? on the democratic side, we assume it would be hillary clinton. without hurting her chances against the republicans, can you analyze the politics? i think the politics matter because you are trying to
advance an agenda and not simply win an election. >> if i do this, people have to appreciate how difficult a decision that is. if i make that decision, i would be running to win. let me also tell you something about myself. you are looking at a candidate who ran four times for mayor eight times for the house, and twice for the senate. the only negative as i have run -- i have never run a negative ad in my life. they don't work. if i run and if secretary clinton runs, what i hope would happen is we would have a serious debate. this is a woman i respect. clearly an intelligent person. i think we would have a debate about how you rebuild the crumbling middle-class, a debate about how you reverse climate change, a debate about foreign
policy and the wisdom of the war in iraq. a debate about trade policy, a debate about wall street. that would be good for the american people. it is not my style to trash people. it is not my style to run ugly negative ads. never have, never will. >> would you reregister as a democrat? >> that is a decision i have yet to make. as i go around the country, a lot of people say republican party democratic party, they are the same. you have to go outside the party system. a lot of people feel that way. i have been in the democratic caucus since i have been in congress. if you want to go where the action is an be in the debate and get media attention, you got to run in the democratic party. that is an issue i'm talking to a lot of people about. >> keep track of the
republican-led congress and follow its new members through its first session. new congress, best action on c-span. new congress, best access on c-span. >> february is black history month. the c-span buses on the road visiting black colleges and universities to highlight the role in america's education system. tomorrow, we will be at fisk university in nashville and talk with its president. on wednesday, we will meet with the president of morehouse college in atlanta. on thursday, we will visit selwyn college and talk with its president --. >> germany and france are still trying for a diplomatic solution in ukraine. if that fails, president barack obama is making it clear the u.s. could send defensive weapons to ukraine's military in its fight against pro-russian rebels. president obama spoke after a
meeting today with german chancellor angela merkel at the white house. their joint news conference is 50 minutes. >> good morning. please be seated. as always, it is a great leisure to welcome my close friend and partner, chancellor angela merkel, back to the white house. angela has been here many times. but this visit is a chance for me to congratulate her on two achievements. well into her third term, angela is now one of germany's longest serving chancellor's. perhaps more importantly this is my first opportunity to publicly congratulate angela and germany on their fourth world cup title. as we all saw, angela is one of her team's biggest fans. our u.s. teen gets better each world cup, so watch out in 2018.
germany is one of our strongest allies. whenever we meet, it is an opportunity to coordinate closely on a range of issues critical to our shared security and prosperity. as angela and our german friends prepare to host the g7 this spring it is also important for us to be able to coordinate on a set of shared goals. at our lunch, we will focus on what we can do to keep the economy growing and creating jobs. a strong supporters of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership we agree there needs to be meaningful progress this year toward an agreement that boosts our economies with strong protections for consumers and workers and the environment. i look forward to hearing angela's assessment of how europe and i.m.f. can work with the greek government to find a way that returns greece to sustainable growth within the
eurozone where growth is critical to both the united states and the global economy. we will be discussing our work to get all major economies to take ambitious action on climate change including our initiative to limit of the financing for coal-fired power plants overseas and our global efforts to face down -- phase down dangerous greenhouse gases. this morning, we focused on global security issues. we reaffirmed our commitment to training afghan forces for a united afghanistan. we agree the international community has to support existing sanctions as part of our diplomatic effort to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon as we work closely to do everything we can to achieve a good, verifiable deal. two issues in particular that dominated hour workday this
morning, russia's aggression against ukraine and the international fight against isis. with regard to russia and the separatists it supports in ukraine, it is clear they have violated just about every commitment they made in the minsk agreement. instead of withdrawing from eastern ukraine russian forces continue to operate their training separatists in helping coordinate attacks. instead of withdrawing arms, russia has sent in more tanks and armored personnel carriers and heavy artillery. with russian support, the separatists have seized more territory and shelled civilian areas, destroyed villages, and driven more ukrainians from their homes. these are the facts. the russian aggression has only reinforced the unity of the united states and our allies and partners around the world. i want to thank angela for her strong leadership as we have met this challenge. chancellor merkel in vice president biden met with
president poroshenko over the weekend. we continue to encourage a diplomatic resolution to this issue. as diplomatic efforts continue this week, we are in agreement the 21st century cannot stand idle -- have us stand idle and allow the borders of europe to be re-john at the barrel of a gun. we have agreed to move forward with our strategy. with our allies, we will keep bolstering our presence in eastern europe. we will continue to work with the i.m.f. and other partners to provide ukraine with critical financial support as it pursues economic and anticorruption reforms. we discussed the issue of how best to assist ukraine as it defends itself.
we agreed sanctions on russia need to remain fully in force until russia complies fully with its obligations. even as we continue to work for a diplomatic solution, we are making it clear again today that if russia continues on its current course, which is running the russian economy and hurting the russian people as well as having a terrible effect on ukraine, russia's isolation will only worsen politically and economically. with regard to isil, germany and the united states remain united in our determination to destroy this barbaric organization. i thanked angela for her strong support is a member of the international coalition working in iraq. germany has taken the important step of equipping kurdish forces in iraq. germany is preparing to lead the training mission of local forces. germany is a close partner in
combating the threat of foreign terrorist fighters, which was the focus of a special session of the human security council -- u.n. security council. germany is moving ahead with new legislation to prevent fighters from traveling to and from syria and iraq. at the same time, both angela and i recognize young people in both our countries are being threatened and targeted for recruitment by terrorists like al qaeda and isil. protecting our young people from this hateful ideology so they are not vulnerable to such recruitment is first and foremost a task for local communities, families neighbors, faith leaders who know their communities best. we can help these communities starting with the tone an example we sat in our own countries. i want to commend angela for her leadership speaking out forcefully against prejudice and
on behalf of pluralism and diversity. she has made it clear all religious committees have a place in germany, just as they do in the united states. we are grateful our german friends will be joining us at our summit next week on countering violent extremism because this is a challenge our countries have to meet together. let me end on an historic note. this year marks the 70th anniversary of the end of the second world war. it marks the 25th anniversary of the reunification of germany. in a time when conflicts around the world sometimes seem intractable, when progress sometimes seems beyond grasp germany's story gives us hope. we can end wars. countries can rebuild. adversaries can become allies. wealth can come down. divisions can be healed. -- balls can come down -- walls
can come down. jimmy reminds us when people stand united, our values will prevail. i'm grateful for my partnership with angela as americans are grateful for their partnership with the people of germany. chancellor merkel. >> [speaking german] >> thank you. i am delighted to be back in washington. nine months ago, we were here for the last time. this visit has a lot to do with the fact we have assumed the presidency this year and coordinate on these matters closely, as we do on others. obviously, will a dress issues related to the global economy when we meet in bavaria. from a european vantage point i think we can say we have made significant progress in a number of areas.
with countries now back on the growth path -- we have countries now back on the growth path. spain and portugal after reforms have now made significant progress. the new commission -- the new commissioner has launched the growth program in which germany will participate. we will then our hopes -- pin our hopes on growth in infrastructure and also growth projects. for example, the digital economy. in the united states, there is a lot of things to be done by the europeans now. i would say a free trade agreement would go a long way towards boosting growth. we know you are very much engaged in the asia-pacific area. germany will come out forcefully in seeing that negotiations between the e.u. and united
states on free trade agreements are pursued in a vigorous manner. it is in our interest and in the interest of the united states. we are dealing with health issues on the g-seven agenda. from the ebola epidemic, we have learned the international community has to be quicker and reacting to such epidemics. germany can give an important contribution to this. we are also interested in seeing it be successful. we are delighted with the conference just completed in germany successfully. we dealt with security issues this morning. this year, germany celebrates the 25th anniversary of reunification. this would not have been possible without transatlantic
partners and the support of the united states of america. we will always be grateful for this. it is one case in point that it is well worth the effort to stand by one's values, to pursue long-term goals and not relent in those efforts. after we thought in the 1990's things would turn out less complicated, now we see ourselves confronted with a wealth of conflict. we work together in afghanistan. germany has decided in its fight against i.s. to give help to deliver training missions, to deliver also weapons. we work together on the iran nuclear program where we enter into a crucial phase of negotiations. one priority was given to the conflict between ukraine and russia this morning.
we stand up for the same principles of in viability of territorial integrity. if we give up this principle he will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of your we have been -- europe we have been able to achieve. it is a crucial point. we have to stand by it. russia has violated the territorial integrity of ukraine in two respects, in crimea and also donetsk and luhansk. we are called upon them to come up with solutions -- we are called upon to come up with solutions. to mediate and also to stand up for the european peaceful order. this is what the french president and i have been trying to do over the past few days. we will continue those efforts. i'm grateful that throughout the ukraine crisis we have been in close contact with the united
states of america and europe on sanctions. this is going to be continued. i think that is one of the most important messages we can send to russia and need to send to russia. we continue to pursue a diplomatic solution, although we have suffered a lot of setbacks. we will see whether all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement. i have said i don't see a military solution to this conflict. but we have to put all our efforts in bringing about a diplomatic solution. there is a host of issues we need to discuss over lunch. we will continue to talk about climate protection, sustainable development goals. yet again, thank you very much for the close cooperation, very close coordination, and the possibility to have an exchange of views on these crucial issues.
not only in hindsight can we safely say the united states have always stood by us and helped us to regain our unity and peace and freedom but we can also say we continue to cooperate closely if it is about solving the conflict of the world today. unfortunately, there are many of them. and we will continue to do so in the future. thank you for your hospitality. >> first question, steve "washington post." >> thank you. he stressed -- you stressed the u.s. and europe need to have cohesion on the issue of sanctions and in dealing with ukraine. the administration is discussing sending lethal weapons to ukraine, which is very different from the chancellor said over the weekend. i was wondering whether this is a good cop/bad cop act or a real reflection of difference of use on the situation -- views on the situation on the ground.
if there is no agreement this week are we looking at a broader set of sanctions? what makes us think those will change the russian president's mind any more than the current ones? >> let me start with the broader point. i think both angela and i have emphasized that the prospect for a military solution to this problem has always been low. russia obviously has a extraordinary loophole for military -- extraordinarily powerful military. given the links of the russian border with ukraine, given the history between russia and ukraine, expecting that if russia is determined that ukraine can fully rebuff a
russian army has always been unlikely. what we have said is the international community, working together, can ratchet up the cost for the violation of the core principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity. that is exactly what we have done. russia has paid a significant cost or its actions in crimea and now in eastern ukraine. it has not yet dissuaded mr. putin from following the course he is on. but it has created a measurable negative impact on the russian economy. that will continue. my hope is that through these diplomatic efforts those costs have become high enough that mr.
putin's preferred option is for a diplomatic resolution. i will not prejudge whether they will be successful. if successful, it will be in part because of the extraordinary patience and effort of chancellor merkel and her team. if they are not we will continue to raise those costs. we will not relent in that. one thing i am encouraged about is the degree to which we have been able to maintain u.s. -european unity on this issue. it is true that if diplomacy fails, what i have asked my team to do is look at all options. what other means can we put in place to change mr. clinton -- mr. clinton -- mr. putin's
calculus? i have not made a decision yet. i have consulted with angela and will be consulting with other allies about this issue. it is not based on the idea ukraine could defeat a russian army determined. it is rather to see whether or not there are additional things we could do to help ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of separatist aggression. but i want to emphasize the decision has not yet been made. one of the bigger issues we are also concerned with is making sure the ukrainian economy is functioning and president poroshenko and the prime minister can continue with the reform efforts they have made. i'm glad to see because of our cooperation and efforts, we are starting to see a package come together with the i.m.f., with
the european union, and others that can help bolster the european economy so they have the space to continue to execute reforms and anticorruption measures they have made. one of the most important things we can do for ukraine is help them succeed economically because that is how people on the ground feel this transformation inside of ukraine. that experiment fails, the larger project of an independent ukraine will fail. so we are going to do everything we can to bolster the. -- bolster that. but there is no doubt if diplomacy fails this week, there is going to continue to be a strong, unified response between the united states and europe. that is not going to change. there may be some areas where there are tactical disagreements. there may not be.
the broad principle that we have to stand up for not just ukraine but the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty is one where we are completely unified. >> [speaking german] the french president and i have decided to make one further attempt to make progress through diplomatic means. we have the minsk agreement. it has never been implement it. quite the contrary. the situation has worsened on the ground. now there is the possibility to try and bring about a cease-fire and to also create conditions where you have not every day civilians dying, civil victims that fall prey to this. i am confident we will do this
together. i would not be able to live with not having made this attempt. there is anything but assured success in all of this. i have to be clear about this. but if at a certain point in time, one has to say success is not possible, even if one puts every effort into it, then the united states and europe have to try to explore further possibilities on what one can do. let me point out foreign ministers of the european union last week already tasked the commission to think about further possible sanctions. on the issue of what is effective and what is not i am somewhat surprised sometimes. just let me mention iran. for a fairly long. of time, we have had sanctions in place.
people don't seem to question them. i think they have been successful if we look at negotiations on the nuclear program. i think it was a very good thing to put some cost on to the russians through these sanctions we agreed on because we see russia seems to be influenced by this. this is why i am 100% height these decisions -- behind these decisions. as to the export of arms, i have given you my opinion. no matter what we decide, the alliance between the united states and europe will continue to stand will continue to be solid, even if on certain issues we don't always agree. partnership on ukraine and russia, combating terrorism, on other issues, is a partnership that has stood the test of time.
in europe, we are very close. the transatlantic partnership for germany is indispensable. this will remain so. i can say this also on behalf of my colleagues in the european union. from the german press agency. you said you have not made a decision as to whether weapons ought to be delivered to ukraine. what would be the line that needs to be crossed for you to decide on armament of the ukrainian army? what do you think will withhold by way of a promise? what can obama due to diffuse the, -- conflict? he demanded again that kiev
negotiate directly with the separatist. when does the right moment come to do this? looking at the big issues are discussed, this breach of confidence due to the n.s.a. affair of the u.s.-german relations, has that played a role today? >> do you want to go first on this? >> [speaking german] i can gladly start. the question as to how one assesses the effectiveness of certain measures has been dealt with. the president has not yet made a decision. he said what is important for me is that we stand very closely together on the question of a new, renewed diplomatic effort. we keep each other informed. we are in close touch. nobody wishes more for a success
than the two of us who stand here side-by-side. but this would also mean not only having a cease-fire in place, but over and above that have certain rules in place. the russian president thanks there ought to be direct contracts. is already exist -- these already exist with representatives from donetsk and the husk. the problem of the last few meetings was that there was not that much of an end result, if they met at all or if the representatives were there at all. this was the core of immense election -- the minsk agreement that there are local elections and the outcome is you have representatives that can speak for those regions. the ukrainian president has paid the way for this -- paved the
way for this. these elections are an essential point that will enable us to say maybe now that can be contact without a trilateral group. this is on the agenda of the many talks we need to make. i can well understand the ukrainian side. on the territory they consider to be part of the territory and anything else would violate the territorial integrity that they want to see elections take place there. that has also been stated by president clinton -- putin that he would like to see elections there. on the n.s.a., there are different assessments and individual issues. if we look at the sheer dimension of the terrorist threat we are more than aware of the fact we need to work together closely. as german chancellor, i want to state clearly the institutions
of the united states still continue to provide us with very significant and important information to our security. don't want to do without this. there are other possibilities to continue to talk about the protection of privacy versus data protection and so on and security. but this was basically combating terrorism the focus today. >> it is important to point out we have been providing assistance to the ukrainian military generals. that has been part of a long-standing relationship between nato and ukraine. our goal has not been for ukraine to be equipped to carry on offensive operations, but to simply defend itself.
president poroshenko has been clear. he is not interested in escalating violence. he is interested in having his country's boundaries respected by its neighbors. there is not going to be any specific point at which i say clearly lethal, defensive weapons would be appropriate here. it is our ongoing analysis of what can we do to dissuade russia from encroaching further on ukrainian territory. our hope is that is done through diplomatic means. i want to emphasize once again for the benefit not just of the american people but for the german people, we are not looking for russia to fail. we are not looking for russia to be surrounded and contained and
weeakend. our preference is for a strong confident russia that can be a partner with us on a host of global challenges. that is how i operated throughout my first term in office. unfortunately, russia has made a decision i think is bad for them strategically, bad for europe, bad for the world. in the face of this aggression and bad decisions, we can't simply try to talk them out of it. we have to show them the world is unified in imposing a cost for this aggression. that is what we are going to continue to do. with respect to the n.s.a., i will make this point briefly. there is no doubt the snowden
revelations damaged impressions of germans with respect to the u.s. government and our intelligence cooperation. what i have done over the last year and a half is to systematically work through some of these issues to create greater transparency and restore confidence, not just for germans but for our partners around the world. we have taken some unprecedented measures. for example, to ensure our intelligence agencies treat non-us -- non-u.s. citizens in ways that are consistent with due process and their privacy concerns. something i put in a presidential order and has not
ever been done not only by our intelligence agencies go most intelligence agencies around the world. there are still going to be areas where we have got to work through these issues. we have to internally work through some of these issues because they are complicated. they are difficult. if we are trying to track a network that is planning to carry out attacks in new york or berlin or paris and they are communicating primarily in cyberspace and we have the capacity to stop an attack like that but that requires us being able to operate within that cyberspace. how do we make sure we are able to do that while still meeting our core principles of respecting the privacy of all
our people? given germany's history i recognize the sensitivities around this issue. but i would ask would be that the german people recognize -- what i would ask would be that the german people recognize the united states has was been on the forefront of trying to promote civil liberties, that we have traditions of due process that we respect. that we have been a consistent partner of yours in the course of the last 70 years and certainly the last 25 years in reinforcing the values we share. occasionally, i would like the german people to give enough -- get us -- give us the benefit of the doubt as opposed -- give us the benefit of the doubt given we are strong partners and share common values. if we have the undermine trust there will be times when there are disagreements.
both sides may make mistakes and will be irritants between friends, but the underlying foundation for the relationship remains sound. christi parsons. >> thank you, mr. president. they ran nuclear -- the iran nuclear regulators have missed two deadlines. should the next talks be the final ones? under what circumstances do you think it would be wise to extend the talks? some have suggested you are outraged by the israeli prime minister's decision to address congress. is that so? how would you advise democrats considering a boycott? >> first of all, we understood from the start when we set up the interim agreement with iran that it would take some time to
work through complex issues and a huge trust deficit between the united states and iran and the world and iran when it comes to the nuclear program. i think there was always the assumption that although the interim agreement lasted a certain time that we would probably need more time to move forward. the good news is is there have been very serious discussions . that time has been well spent. during this time, issues have been clarified gaps have been narrowed, the iranians have abided by the agreement so this , is not a circumstance in which by talking they have been stalling and meanwhile advancing a program. to the contrary, we know the
program has not only been frozen but with respect to 20% enriched , uranium, they have reversed it, so we are in a better position than we were before the program was set up. having said all of that, the issues are sufficiently narrowed and clarified. we are at the point now where they need to make a decision. we are presenting to them in a unified fashion, supported by a coalition of countries around the world, we are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. if in fact what they claim is true, which is they have no aspirations to get a nuclear
weapon, and according to their supreme leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon. if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal. they should be able to get to yes. but we don't know if that's going to happen. they have their hard-liners, they have their politics. the point at this juncture is i don't see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bottom line the world requires to have confidence they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. if the framework for a deal is done and people have a clear sense of what is required and there is some drafting that's a , different issue. but my view, and i have presented this to members of
congress, is we now know enough that the issues are no longer technical. the issues now are, does iran have the political will and desire to get a deal done? we could not be doing this were it not for the incredible cohesion and unity that has been shown by germany, by the other members of the p5 plus one which i should acknowledge includes russia. this is an area where they have actually served a constructive role. china has served a constructive role. there has been no cracks on the p5 plus one side of the table, and i think that is a testament to the degree to which we are acting reasonably and trying to actually solve a problem. with respect to prime minister
netanyahu, as i said, i talked to him all the time and our teams constantly coordinate. we have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections, two weeks before their elections. as much as i love angela, if she was two weeks away from an election she probably would , not receive an invitation to the white house and i suspect she would not have asked for one. [laughter] some of this just has to do with how we do business. i think it is important for us to maintain these protocols because the u.s.-israeli
relationship is not about a particular party. this is not a relationship founded on affinity between the labour party and the democratic party or the likud and the republican party. this is the u.s.-israeli relationship that extends beyond parties and has to do with that unbreakable bond we feel and our commitment to israel's security and the shared values we have. the way to preserve that is to make sure it does not get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics whether that is accurate or not, that is a potential perception and that's something we have to guard against. i don't want to be quite -- coy.
the prime minister and i have a very real difference around iran's sanctions. i have been very clear and angela agrees with me and david cameron agrees with me and the others who are members of the negotiations agree that it does not make sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they are about to be completed. and we should play that out if we can get a deal, we should embrace it. if we cannot get a deal, we will have to make a set of decisions . as i said to congress, i will be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against iran. but what's the rush? unless your view is that it's not possible to get a deal with iran and should not even be tested. that i cannot agree with because as president of the united states, i'm looking for what the options are we don't get a diplomatic resolution. those options are narrow and not attractive. from the perspective of u.s.
interests, and i believe from the perspective of israeli interests, it's far better if we can get a diplomatic solution. so there are real differences, substantively, but that's separate and apart from the whole issue of mr. netanyahu coming to washington. >> [speaking german] he just said the question is what will be effective in the ukrainian crisis and diplomacy has not really brought about that much progress. can you understand the impatience of the americans when they say we ought to deliver weapons and what makes you feel confident diplomacy will carry the day in the next few days and weeks?
on greece, i also have to ask you what is your comment on the recent comments from the greek prime minister who says let's end those programs and i'm going to stand by the promises i made on the elections. and to you, mr. president there , is quite a lot of pressure by members of your government who say weapons should be delivered to the ukrainians. you yourself have said you want to ratchet up the cost of putin has to bear and make him relent and give in. you said all options have to be on the table. what makes you so sure these weapons will not only go into the hands of the ukrainian army but will also perhaps get into the hands of separatists who are accused of having violated human
rights? thank you. >> whenever you have political conflicts such as the one we have now between russia and the ukraine, but also in many other conflicts around the world, it has always proved to be right to try again and again to thwart that conflict. we have spoken about the iranian conflict. we are expecting to try time and again and there's always a point where you say the options are on the table and we've gone back and forth. but then one has to think again. looking just at the middle east conflict, how many people have tried to bring about a solution to this conflict? i'm going to participate and support it every time because every time it has been well worth the effort. when you have a situation where you see people dying, you see the dire conditions under which people live, it is incumbent
upon us as politicians. we only to the people -- we owe it to the people to explore every avenue. but we have grown up under conditions -- i have to point this again, where we have said nobody would have dreamt of german unity. they said should we keep up citizenship of germany? they have been criticized by some who have ideas and then think of president reagan, when he said "mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall." many people that how could he say that, but it was right. we have no guarantee. i cannot give you a guarantee of the outcome of the talks. maybe nothing will come out of it. but we are called upon to think about a new possibility.
we have thought about it every step of the way will this be , effective or not? a lot of things have to be thought about and i'm glad that with the american president, i've always been able to put all the cards on the table. in my speech in munich, i gave you clearly where i stand, but we will continue to try it. i think that's why we're politicians and why we chose this profession. others have to do other things. researchers have to find new things to explore and we have to see the well-being of our people is insured, but we never have a guarantee the policies we adopt greece -- i almost forgot. >> on wednesday, there will be a eurogroup meeting and i think what counts is what greece will put on the table. at that eurogroup meeting or
perhaps a few days later. >> the german policy ever since 2010 has been aimed at greece staying a member of the euro zone. i've said this time and again. the basic rules have always in -- then the same -- the basic world have always been the same. you put in your own effort and on the other side, you're being shown solidarity. the e.c.b., the european union commission, and the i.m.f. have agreed that these programs are the basis of any discussion we have. i have always said i will wait for greece to come with a sustainable proposal and then we will talk about this. >> the point angela made is right. we never have guarantees any particular course of action or particular course of action works. all works. as i have said before, by the time a decision reaches my desk,
by definition, it is a hard problem with no easy answers. otherwise someone else would have solved it and i would never hear about it. the issue you raised that can we be certain about any lethal aid we provide ukraine is used properly does not fall into the wrong hands, does not lead to overaggressive actions that cannot be sustained by the ukrainians, what kinds of reactions does it prompt not simply from separatists but the russians, those are issues that have to be considered. the measure by which i make these decisions is is it more likely to be effective than not? that's what our deliberations will be about. but what i do know is this --
the united states and europe have not stood idly by. we've made enormous efforts enormous investments of dollars, political capital, of diplomacy in trying to resolve this situation. i think the ukrainian people can feel confident we have stood by them. people like vice president biden and secretary of state terri have spent countless hours on this issue as has angela and her team on the german side. just because we have not yet gotten the outcome we want doesn't mean this pressure is not over time making a difference. i think it is fair to say there
are those inside russia who recognize this has been a disastrous course for the russian economy, i think mr. putin is factoring that in, but understandably, until the situation is entirely resolved we will have to keep trying different things to see if we can get a better outcome. what i do know is we will not be able to succeed unless we maintain a strong when tech solidarity which has been the hallmark of our national security throughout the last 70 years. i am confident i have a great partner in angela maintaining that. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> we will show angela merkel's comments coming up on c-span. we wanted you to see comments from center bernie sanders who spoke this morning at the brookings institution in washington. one of the issues he discussed was his -- benjamin netanyahu plus upcoming speech to a joint meeting of congress. here is some of what he had to say. >> i would like to ask you your opinion on the speech that prime minister netanyahu plans to give to congress and would you consider boycotting it? >> i think look, again, people disagree. the president [inaudible] and the idea that the president was not even consulted, that is wrong and not a good thing for our country. >> are you thinking of not going? >> i am not thinking of not going, i am not going. [applause]
>>, and if your colleagues will do that, do you have any sense? >> you want me to speculate. i do not know. >> i am the media. >> that is right. >> you can see all of senator sanders' appearance in an hour here on c-span. we will bring that to you at 6:05 p.m. eastern. the 51st annual munich security conference in germany, chancellor angela merkel spoke at the event and she said the conflict in the crane will not be solved militarily. she was introduced by a former german ambassador and she took questions including one from senator bob corker, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. >> ladies and gentlemen i think it will not be necessary to introduce our next speaker. it is a great pleasure for all of us but it has been possible
against all odds to keep this appointment because yesterday the day before yesterday it had not been clear it would be possible because the german chancellor decided to hold talks and kiev together with the french president and she also traveled onto moscow last night so i would like to take advantage of this opportunity to welcome the german federal chancellor. [applause] >> we are delighted that it has been possible for you to join us this morning and without further
do, i would like to get the four to. -- floor to you. [applause] >> the crisis in ukraine and erect, syria, the able epidemic, these issues alone show that last year brought much suffering and destruction to people in many different regions of the world. and it brought challenges for the international security policy. this is why it is appropriate that the question of the state of the international order and
possible collapsing order is something that i will focus on in the discussions this morning. this year we remember a number of historical turning point. 70 years ago, the second world war ended that was unleashed by germany and the break with civilization was sure. a new order of international relations could be created that was to ensure a lasting peaceful coexisting of nations on this planet. crucial components of this order by the u.n., the north atlantic alliance and european union. second, 40 years ago there was a final act -- it acknowledged the inviolability of orders, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and noninterference into the internal affairs of other
nations. it was an important milestone on the long road toward overcoming the cold war. exactly 25 years ago the treaty was signed and german unity was created. both events marked not only a turning point in germany sister but also marked a new beginning in the relationship tween east and west. let me state here once again very clearly germany will always be forever great old for the -- nations of central europe for standing up for their freedom and independence thus paving the way also for germany to regain its unity and peace and freedom. for more than a year now, we have witnessed in the ukraine crisis that the foundations of the european peaceful order cannot at all be taken for granted. for russia's actions in crimea and eastern ukraine has violated
the very foundations of our coexistence in europe. russia shows disrespect for the territorial territory -- of ukraine and their sovereignty. international laws violated. after the horrible war in the 90's we have to witness at again what it means when peace and stability in europe cannot be taken for granted. and the use of force becomes a bitter reality. russia's actions are in stark contradiction to its obligations, example the but a pest memorandum. commitment to which it has committed itself. at the time it was assured by the u.n. in the u.s. and by russia and the territorial integrity of ukraine would be respected and ukraine give up its nuclear capacity and if i
remind all of us on talks on the margins of the security conference who would ever give up nuclear capacity if one cannot show and receive the respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty in this is why the european union points out together with the transatlantic partners the policy that aims at changing borders europe by force is out of place in the 21st century. we make it very clear that international law has to be respected. no one among us has any interest in a new division of europe and certainly not in a confrontation where you run the risk of uncontrollable escalation. we want to shape security in europe together with russia and not against russia. this is true for the european and transatlantic security order. this is also true for coping with international challenges they are challenges to all of us
from proliferation of weapons of mass destruction all the way to combating international terrorism. the negotiations for conflict of -- with iran and removal of syrian weapons show that in spite of all the crises. all important issues and incidentally, these examples also show that an international order may will have a positive effect. however, the presupposes that all partners, all parties are willing to abide by the basic principles of such an order and also to measure in the and to the extent to which they abide by those rules. russia needs to do its bit in the ukrainian crisis is well. this crisis cannot be solved by military means and that is why it is important more than ever to define substantial steps that serve to fill [indiscernible] with life.
this is the goal, this is the purpose in which all our talks in kiev in moscow and i'm here -- please to see [indiscernible] attend this conference. [applause] after the talks yesterday, which the french president and i have held, i say it is uncertain whether they will be crowned a success. from my -- in my view and in the view of the french president it is well worth our while to make this attempt. i think we oh it to the people affected in ukraine by this crisis. whoever wishes to ensure the security, stability, and well-being of his people in the long run needs to accept the rules of this international
community as part of the international community. we in europe will always stand up together with our partners for our values and the european peaceful order. the decisions of the nato summit in wales last year have to be seen against this background. the nato laid its foundation for an enhanced readiness -- that is where we put the focus on selective defense in the alliance. also with a view to potential threats of the so-called hybrid warfare. and particularly our alliance partners in the east are counting on us to do this. that -- the security concerns are our security concerns. this is way germany together with the netherlands and norway over the next 12 months will be working as a framework nation for the rapidly employable high residents joint task force and we will substantially contribute to the pilot project and together with poland we will
bring -- build up a international head course -- headquarters. we show responsibility for the security of our alliance partners and neighbors. it is precisely because nato is a community of values, of shared values, that is why the importance is far more than a mayor declaration of intent. the solidarity of alliance partners does not serve merely a utilitarian apis but rests on joint values and convictions and this is why it is of crucial importance to lend them credibility. at the same time, we have to work on strengthening instruments of cooperative and security in europe and here the rsce plays a part. they proved its importance very
clearly. to get back to building the confidence and cooperation it will be of crucial importance that all member states of the osce reaffirm their commitment to its principles and have their deeds match their words. we want to renew this common understanding of a joint principle. principles that should lead to security and cooperation in europe that is only possible for cooperation and confidence building. the precondition for this and let me underline this yet again is that the foundation -- the foundations of our postwar order in peaceful order can be restored unconditionally. at first -- the free -- precept is the borders in europe remain inviolable. secondly the nations of europe remain free to determine their own future. this has been the outcome of the
long negotiated process and we have then guided by this conviction and when we stand up for the states of the balkans when we say we want them to an -- enjoyed democracy freedom self-determination, and prosperity. they no longer fit, they not -- are no longer in keeping with the times of his characterized by a free-trade agreement. this is why we will also us to work for the conclusion of a free trade agreement because we want not to stand idly by and see the whole of the asian and pacific area and concluding trade agreements and europe but it will be work. this attitude, protectionism and isolation are a thing of the past. it is something that the european union underlines
whether it's transatlantic partners who have a long-term cooperation project. those that we concluded in the conference but also to these -- the substantial support of the ukrainian people. we are interested in a long-term goal of creating a common economic area. i support all necessary talks to this and between the but let me say preconditions for such talks and for the successes overcoming the crisis in ukraine on the basis of international law. the southern neighborhood of europe hills is with great concern. it is characterized by a people, fragility, and failing states. the civil war in syria alone has claimed more than 220 -- two at a 20,000 victims of the past four years.
civilians, women, and children have fallen victim to this violence. millions of people have fled the country. the neighboring countries, lebanon, turkey, and jordan, shoretel are -- shoulder a very heavy burden by solving the flow of refugees in the go far beyond what the countries are capable of doing. the international community owes them a deep debt of gratitude. obviously our efforts can only be help if we look at the terrible suffering of the people there. the state order has grave consequences for the whole of the region. the terror group threatens the stability of syria, iraq, and the region. they persecute and kill all those who are not willing to submit themselves to their role and it is also a cross-border
phenomenon. a similar tendency can be observed by the terror group boko haram, they are using the weakness of the state -- [indiscernible] and the tyranny of innocent people with its barbaric terror. the international community and arab and muslim states included and that is an important message is facing this killing, this murder in a resolute way. it is incumbent upon us because of the respect for humanity and it is in our interest to give us a substantial contribution. this is why germans agreed on the training mission along with
international partners. we won't want to send -- stand shoulder to shoulder with the iraqi and kurdish security forces trying to help them to work against the terror of islamic state. we do this as we did because where secured -- [indiscernible] it would be erroneous to believe they would not have an effect on europe. international terrorism may threaten us and it is something that the terror attacks against journalists and attacks against police and [inaudible] the response is to fight against
islamist terrorism and this is why germany continues to use also at present the g-7 to work on cutting off as much as possible the flow of fighters. we are taking resolute action in order to ban the leading of those who wish to participate in the fight from germany and to join terrorist groups. it will be a punishable offense to leave germany to join fights with the purpose of perpetrating acts of violence abroad. the government has adopted a bill which enables us to in the future with draw the id card of jihadists as to prevent them from leaving the country and we will introduce any punishable
challenge, a new legislation that makes terrorism a punishable offense. we are standing with the overwhelming majority of muslims in europe who want nothing to do with this terrorism. we have spoken out loudly against this abuse of their religion. the attacks in paris, the cross-border epidemic of ebola the crisis of refugees, show us that foreign security policy issues have an impact on the internal situation in our society. the crisis in west africa and other places of the world show the development of entire regions depend on whether one can ensure basic security. people need security in order to develop their potential. states need security in order to develop and be prosperous.
regions need security to build orderly structures and also to -- many of these crises have their root cause in the hopelessly weak internal structures of certain countries and regions. regional conflicts and fights, lack of inclusiveness, deficient educational systems, week health systems -- all of these aspects have a negative impact of long-term stability of the government and countries and also the legitimacy of countries. therefore also, they -- the federal government is convinced that also it is in our own best security interest to pursue a comprehensive approach in order to stabilize. we have to include them and help them to stabilize their state structures.
one aspect is in rendering the security institutions capable of functioning. development and security need to go hand and hand. training as security forces is very important. we need to see they have the efficiency of equipped in order to fill their mission -- to fulfill their mission. that is also ensuring respect for human rights. it continues to be most important that these goals of equipment and empowerment and providing the necessary funds is pursued consistently. the upcoming european council on common security and defense policy will be another opportunity to discuss the international community. over the past decade, we have been very active in afghanistan. we have achieved quite a number of successful progress. we have set up a school and health system.
the african army and lease has been built up. the quality of life of afghans has improved in comparison to the economic situation has 2001. developed satisfactorily and a civil society has created a very diverse median. we also have been able to attain a one important goal. afghanistan is no longer an international terrorist. we should not overlook the every day security situation for people is anything but satisfactory. corruption and the drug trade has not been sufficiently contained and there is no real conciliation process in place. we have to do everything to ensure that what we have achieved is maintained, built upon. we need a degree of realism and also have to be consistent in our continued effort and we need patience.
the security sector will continue to require even beyond 2016 comes substantial international support and not only financial support, the framework conditions for this will have to be created together with our international partners and with the government. the present international order rests on the experience of two world wars. its strength derives from the basic pentacles -- principles for our standing up of these values. it is a foundation for living in peace and stability. at least in europe. in other regions, the task we face as a norma's. -- is enormous. if we remember that in 1948, most countries of the world
subscribed to the charter of human rights entered into commitments. we must say we are far away from abiding by the tenants we have subscribed. this order has never been rigid. it never will be. it will be continuously develop. not to disrespect that through intensive engagement. germany is ready to do it's bid. -- do its bit. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the
federal chancellor takeaway -- declared herself ready to answer some questions you might have. we still have a bit of time left. before taking the first question, i would like to thank you very much for one remark you made. that is to say the remarks you made in terms of the osce. tonight, you will not able to join us. there will be an official dinner in which we will award the award . to the osce this year. the award will be accepted by the current strike or, -- current troika consisting of switzerland and the federal or republic of germany. i would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the awardees. thank you very much for taking
this issue up in this speech. this leads to the question, and i would be grateful if you would introduce yourselves briefly. i am familiar with most of you but i don't know all of you. who is going to start? [laughter] >> thank you very much, i am with the iss. given the ware in ukraine and the apparently limited results of your determined diplomatic efforts, will germany suggest to increase european and international support to ukraine? thank you very much.
>> well i think that one can always do more, in different shapes and forms. right now, ukraine is not only involved in a very difficult military conflict, but we also have to keep an eye on the economic stability of ukraine. this is why right now there are very ambitious negotiations going on with the imf, for example, and the question is can it europe help? -- can europe help? what can other countries do? and one part of the question is, do we actually stand by our values? this will hinge on if we are ready and willing to give economic support. we know that democracies can only -- democracies actually
have a lot to do with values but also, their strength also rests on people actually enjoying a certain quality of life. on the experience, when you do more when you work harder, you can in joy the material benefits, and that is a very difficult task that we have not been really fully solving. >> madam chancellor, which guarantees do you have, which guarantees do you expect, that a potential agreement on a cease-fire will now not the treated on the minsk agreement of the geneva agreement in the future? >> there are no theoretical guarantees to this, only the experience that what we promise we'll be if lamented.
-- is something that will be implemented. what we have seen after that minsk agreement is that, well, very, very delusionary, very -- disillusioning, very disappointing. the president of ukraine has run a very great political risk, and also a political risk after the they rather decided to accept them minsk agreements, all of these were not simple things to accept, so there is great disappointment there now. and because one cannot obviously be sort of content by being disappointed, i would be very careful about saying something about guarantees, and a guarantee, well, that depends on you and your partner entering into some kind of agreement, and so far, the experience has not been a sufficient legal one.
but the answer to this cannot be, you don't actually have to enter into any agreements at all. you must have to try time and time again, that is what i think. >> thank you very much, met them -- madam chancellor, i am now looking at my american test -- american guest. >> chancellor, thank you for speaking today, and your efforts. i think most in the united states congress would like to see all of us are to sedate -- us participate in arming ukraine. one of the things that we think that is that we have held off because of german resistance to that. i was wondering if you would speak to your sense of why as we urge ukraine to join us and as they are under this extreme conflict, we would not, at least, give them defensive arms to counter the offenses that
russia is taking in eastern ukraine. >> well, you see, i am firmly convinced that this conflict cannot be solved with military means. this is why we have decided to concentrate on a diplomatic solution to this crisis and at the same time, we were gratified to know that it is truly a transatlantic approach. we want to oppose sanctions, sanctions in those areas in russia where we think we are strong, and in the economic area. i understand your viewpoint.
and also the discussion that is going on. but the progress that ukraine needs cannot be achieved by more weapons. i have great else about the validity of that point -- great doubts about the validity of that point. if we say that we ought to concentrate on other options there are other weapons there on the ground, and so far that has not led to a, my seen any chance to solve this conflict. him and him and >> a gentleman at the very back, unfortunately i cannot really make you out it -- out? the use of the light. >> chancellor, you rightly
pointed out that the efforts in afghansistan were successful and 00:32:03 you stopped al qaeda, and was al qaeda success in it transnational terrorism overall, or was it in some ways to contravene it to a metamorphosis of a phenomenon? the second assumption that one could question, although rightly, the situation in afghanistan has improved in many ways. have the effort led to a sustainable transformation of the conflict dynamics there? in other words, could we reasonably expect a stable afghanistan in a stable region looking forward? i am asking those questions because i would like to challenge you to reflect a little bit on what the experiences from afghanistan
means to the current efforts taken to address i s and by extension -- address is and by extension transnational terrorism? thank you. >> well, i think that it was very clear that when the mission in afghanistan started, at the -- that afghanistan constituted a a threat to the world, a threat that transcended the borders of a country itself. so the collective decision to intervene it was a correct one it was necessary, and one should not forget that. actually, when it started, before 9/11, to stop the fighting camps of al qaeda, and
that failed. so it was a necessary decision. but in hindsight, i would say that due to the experience we have made in the meantime, i think that would change our perception. this mission claimed far more lives and the united states paid a very heavy price indeed. so there is one thing that we should avoid doing, mainly to turn our eyes away from afghanistan and no longer look at it and i quite purposely talked about looking this as a international task. -- looking at this as a generational task. obviously, our goals change, but we should not lose sight of afghanistan because then the probability that it fails is very high, and because these processes are not just military forces and they are not just happening on the ground, and
they take a long time and depend on a lot of parameters for example, and the neighborhood, just to mention afghanistan in this conflict, so let's be careful there. for example, let me remind you of them situation, it was held with the best of intentions, but the vision that we had at the time of building of the society there along the lines of what we had an abiding by a democratic principle and a democratic order -- and a parliamentary order this will not happen, and we have to look at the cultural particular 80's of the -- -- to kill your days -- peculiar theseities of the country and i am
very much for human rights don't misunderstand me, but sometimes as europeans if we conclude trade agreements and that we demand that the way they they treat homosexuals should be treated in the same way that we have been trying in germany, i think that we forget that in 1960, there was still a law in place here where for example the husband had to give permission to his wife to go out and work. it is not as if this was 100 years ago. now all of a sudden, we have achieved this, we act as if the whole world has to follow, and we experience -- we expect that overnight. don't let me make this -- don't make the mistake that i am against human rights, but from the founding of the second republic of germany and all the way to today, it has a lot of changes.
now, with our conclusion of our mission in afghanistan, it does not mean that all of a sudden we are gone and they are no longer terrorists. the terrorist challenge has increased in scope and in nature, just think of boko haram. now there are alliances of countries that actually combat these terrorists that have grown in this particular part of the world, and i have think -- have to thank the united states of america that has always, time and time again, try to include its allies in these efforts. just look at somalia, we have been working on since the 90's. saddam, we would not have been able to solve the problems in africa if we did not let them solve these problems on their own to rid this is why it is so important to strengthen the au
this is why it is important to set up training missions there this is why it is important to set up good government, african societies will expect the people to rule them to be more transparent in the way that they govern, and if they don't do this, we can build up something and the minute we turn our eye somebody is going to take the whole structure out. and he is looking at me somewhat scans, but let me just say that we as western partners will not be able to do this on our own, but western corporation is needed with the forces on the ground. >> will i am not looking at you,
i am not annoyed, -- well, i am not looking at you, i am not 00:38:53 annoyed, i am just playing the role of moderator as we all have to be brief. that's true, but i can even give you an answer, but one that would be even longer. well, i am afraid that we are no longer able to accept any other questions. i would like to take advantage of the last 15 minutes remaining to deal with the questions that have already been handed to me seriously. -- handed to me previously. the next speaker is from the french national assembly and the former administer of justice -- former minister of justice. >> thank you very much, thank
you very much for the effort you have taken in ukraine, and thank you also very much for announcing that you 00:39:58 -- announcing that you are not going to give up your efforts in cooperation with the french president. we have all understood that a lot of work still remains to be done. i would like to ask a question regarding the last remarks in you made about the security on the african continent. it is true that a comprehensive approach is needed in regards to good government in the fight against corruption, respect for the role of law, and this is an indispensable basis for security around the world. at the same time, it is also true that the all confront the urgency of situations when intervention is needed. france has journeyed in mli ali, for example -- intervened in mali, for example, and germany
has made a significant contribution to this. when it comes to the fight of the boko haram and other organizations, you would like to keep up the german contributions, unfortunately turnout seems to be a connection between these individual terrorist organizations and groups. all of them having recourse to attach a muslim principles. -- attach muslim rituals -- principles. in the assembly, we share your approach to the ukraine crisis but in ukraine, there is a call for more support, not only by germany, but also from other european countries. france has been very active on the african continent, it has
been very much engaged. now that the european union has decided to set up a response post, maybe you could give us your intentions of the more engaged. in particular in those countries. >> well, over the past few years, i think the have actually quite rapidly stepped up engagement in africa, if you compare it to the way we have done business before. france, has, in many ways, a much closer relationship with francophone countries in africa. again, if you remember how many french nationals also live in those african countries, it is a quite different quality and the way you can actually act against that background in a really robust way. a president actually came and talked, had actually won the
election, and the consequent of robust action, but we are very glad to have france as a very valued partner, we can learn a lot from france in this example, we were together in congo when we were preparing for the election, and i think that we will actually enhance our engagement there. i had a talk recently with the president of ghana, and i hope i pronounced his a name correctly, and we talked about the fight against boko haram, and the african union it wishes to have its own intervention force. maybe we as it european skin -- europeans can give them the necessary funding maybe we as
the european union can it give them necessary financing and necessary funding. germany will not be able to act in the way that france has acted because there is a different historical background to it. >> thank you very much, madame chancellor. >> let me add one sentence perhaps. germany quite often is criticized for being actually one of the speediest 00:44:19 -- the speediest and one of the most quickly to react. and it is true, we have our parliament who takes its time to discuss matters, and we have a decision-making process. but let's not forget that we are also in on it for the duration. there were 800 forces in kosovo, and also in the western balkans we were very active. we would also see to it that we would stay in afghanistan as long as it is sensible and as
long as it is needed. as long as you need someone to be safe, then we can be counted on. [applause] >> well, this was a question from paris, and the next question comes from london. michael risk and -- michael risk 00:45:22 fkin, he used to be the secretary of state. >> you were talking about efforts to ultimately bring peace to you train. -- peace to ukraine. i was reading once that frederick the 00:45:42 -- frederick the great said a call to arms was like listening to music without instruments. are we able to persuade
president putin to come to a political solution, a diplomatic solution, as long as he knows that he is in a very strong monopolistic position, that he can without impunity provide all military equivalent to the rebels in eastern ukraine, and with the safe knowledge that no one will be assuring the ukrainian government the mattila -- the military means. to resist that aggression. what incentive does he have to use that power that we decline to use in ukraine? [applause] >> the problem is that i cannot envision any situation in which an improved equipment of the ukrainian army would lead to a
situation where president putin is so impressed that he would stop his military. unless, and i don't want to talk about unless. and that is the reality of the day. and i think one has to look reality in the eye. i grew up in the jdr. as a seven-year-old child, i saw the wall being erected. no one believed at the time that one ought to intervene militarily in order to protect the citizens of the area, and i don't actually mind that because i understand this because it was a realistic assessment that we would not need to intervene. today we have no guarantee that president putin will do what we expect him to.
but i do think that military means will rather lead to more victims and not the conviction that the russian military can be vanquished in this way and be defeated in this way. >> i am talking to the ukrainian president all the time. and i know that we may be of different opinions here, but militarily, this cannot be won/ . this is the bitter truth and the bitter reality. the international community has to come up with something more intelligent and that is why it is so important that we stand
shoulder to shoulder. i have it not only the experience that americans not only waged war against the gdr but i also have the experience standing up for the unity of germany led to my sitting here today. we have always had this experience. rings take long. -- things take long. i am 100% convinced that my principles will prevail. if after only two months in the european union we say that one cannot see any effect of the sanctions, then i can only say well, that is not how you win the battle in the end. no one knew when the cold war would end at the time, but, it did end. so this is within our living experience. so we should believe this after the end of the cold war. i must say that i am surprised at how fainthearted we are and how quickly we lose courage that something in the end may come.
[applause] >> well, time is nearly up ladies and gentlemen. maybe you could agree to stay longer for other questions madame chancellor. the first question will 00:50:17 -- will be asked from the human rights watch, he has been raising his hand for quite a long time. >> good morning, madame chancellor. here in the west we want to see a diplomatic solution, no one wants to see otherwise, but if you have special operation forces using at the latest weaponry that require sometimes it years to learn how to use and on the ukrainian aside you
have volunteers using weapons from the 1970's and the 1980's, sometimes 1960's, it is clear what the end result will be. there was a piece in "the new york times" that said surrender, ukraine. -- or arm ukraine. i think that is the way it will go unless diplomacy fails and we say we won't arm ukraine, that is what will happen. and we have already seen the line move beyond minsk, and the question is how far? >> absolutely. the question is, would it be all that different if the weapons of the ukrainian army were somewhat
different? i have my doubts. i think one can discuss this but i am much concerned about something quite different, and i mean we will be able to convince each other out of respect of viewpoints in this initial. of time. let me tell you what i am most concerned about during this. period of time. if i look at europe at this period of time, it seems that europe is more advanced militarily, and this issue of hybrid warfare is something we need to take a much, much closer look at and we have to discuss this very intensively. the question is, what our democracies actually capable of? and what sort of more guided let's put it that way, that governments are capable of when it comes to infiltration of the media creating a disturbance? and also, undermining the certainties that we always afford and felt was so solid in our society.
that is something i am most concerned about. we have our hands full, and we take a very close look at the non-military part of this hybrid warfare, and the european council and the society becomes aware of what is actually happening there in a very clandestine way and to understand the very long series of events, and you know exactly what i am talking about. we need to know an awareness of what is happening there, because the way that opinions are shaped and society, for example, what is happening in ukraine at right now where people seem to look at it as if it were somehow somewhat equal. but the ukrainians are doing bad things, so it is no wonder the russians are doing bad things to
them, and that is something that we really need to work on. >> the last and final question is coming up, and i apologize if you have raised her hand and i was not able to get into your question. this afternoon you will have another opportunity to ask your questions. >> not many of us know who is on your list, so you have to make this promise, right? [laughter] >> madame chancellor, i appreciate that you mentioned the hundreds of thousands of guests in syria, but i worry it
is going to be hard to persuade the syrian people to address only isis's atrocities instead of just also announcing a ssad's atrocities. which is responsible for many other debts deaths -- deaths including his barrel bombs. is it possible to talk about -- with russia about syria in addition to ukraine, can we talk to iran in regards to syria? and the nuclear question? >> of course, of course i mean after we talked to russia, the fact that chemical weapons have been removed, by and large, from syria, has a lot to do 00:55:46 -- has a lot to do with russia
and in turn, this also proves that if russia and the united states and others have different opinions on how to deal with this, why not get closer to a solution? it gets mark obligated. it gets more complicated. the more you come to a unified position on a side --assad, the more you will get to a uniform course. yesterday, i talked to the prime minister of iraq and what he told me based on the -- on the basis of the challenge of is, he told us he sees the atrocities committed in a somewhat different light comparing assad and is.